Examining the Influence of AI-Supporting HR Practices Towards Recruitment Efficiency with the Moderating Effect of Anthropomorphism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.Theoretical and Practical Contributions:

The study places significant emphasis on the development of the research framework and empirical findings. However, its academic contributions require clearer articulation. Specifically, it is recommended to explore whether existing technology acceptance models, such as TAM or UTAUT, warrant extension or revision. Furthermore, the research should offer a more detailed discussion on its practical value for HR practitioners and the recruitment industry.

 

2.Research Motivation and Problem Statement:

While the summary acknowledges HR professionals' limited willingness to adopt AI for recruitment, the underlying challenges and barriers remain insufficiently articulated. To strengthen the research motivation, it is crucial to clearly identify the specific difficulties in the current recruitment process and elucidate how AI technologies could address these issues.

 

3.Theoretical Basis for Variable Relationships:

Although the study identifies six key factors—including perceived interactivity and perceived intelligence—there is insufficient theoretical justification for how these variables influence adoption intentions. Strengthening the theoretical underpinnings by referencing established models and literature would enhance the robustness of the framework.

 

4.Language Refinement:

Some sentences could be streamlined to enhance clarity and readability. For example, "perceived interactivity, perceived intelligence, personalization, accuracy, automation, and instant experience are the core factors that enhance employees' willingness to adopt artificial intelligence for recruitment" might be rephrased as "perceived interactivity and intelligence are central to fostering AI adoption for recruitment." Simplified and concise expressions will facilitate better reader engagement.

 

Incorporating these recommendations will contribute to enhancing the scholarly depth, readability, and overall academic value of the abstract, ultimately clarifying the research's theoretical and practical contributions.

Author Response

Comments from Reviewer 1

1. Theoretical and Practical Contributions: The study places significant emphasis on the development of the research framework and empirical findings. However, its academic contributions require clearer articulation. Specifically, it is recommended to explore whether existing technology acceptance models, such as TAM or UTAUT, warrant extension or revision. Furthermore, the research should offer a more detailed discussion on its practical value for HR practitioners and the recruitment industry.

 

Author Response

Respected reviewer author has revised manuscript carefully. Regarding your concern like academic contribution author has revised section  5.1 Theoretical contributions. In revised version theoretical contribution are clear in all aspects. Moreover, regarding practical value section 5.2 Practical contributions has explained contribution to field in detail. Similarly, this section highlights useful finding which assist policy makers to identify core factors which enhance employee attitude towards adoption of AI driven recruitment and hence bring efficiency in recruitment process. 

 

2. Research Motivation and Problem Statement: While the summary acknowledges HR professionals' limited willingness to adopt AI for recruitment, the underlying challenges and barriers remain insufficiently articulated. To strengthen the research motivation, it is crucial to clearly identify the specific difficulties in the current recruitment process and elucidate how AI technologies could address these issues.

Author Response

Dear reviewer the second paragraph of the introduction comprises research motivation and research problem statements. However, as per your suggestion author has revised introduction section.

Following supporting statement for your consideration.

“Nevertheless, HR professional are hesitant to adopt AI technology in recruitment process (Garg et al., 2022; Horodyski, 2023).”

“For instance Garg et al. (2022) asserted that HR professionals do not have comprehensive understanding about AI enabled recruitment applications.”

Similarly, research gap is also clear for instance

“Prior studies have discussed about AI driven recruitment in general and lacking empirical analysis (Black & van Esch, 2020; Jatobá et al., 2023).”

 

3.Theoretical Basis for Variable Relationships: Although the study identifies six key factors—including perceived interactivity and perceived intelligence—there is insufficient theoretical justification for how these variables influence adoption intentions. Strengthening the theoretical underpinnings by referencing established models and literature would enhance the robustness of the framework.

Author Response

Dear reviewer detail literature review was conducted to establish research model.

In introduction section structural definition of all factors is given.

Supporting statement is as follows:

Nevertheless, with the help of literature this study has synthesized that factors like interactivity, intelligence, personalization, accuracy, automation, real time experience and anthropomorphism are core factors which influence employee behavior to adopt AI enabled recruitment system.

However, in chapter 2 Literature review hypotheses are conceptualized with past studies. All hypotheses have substantial support from past literature. Revised version is updated and demonstrates clearly how outlined factors boost employee adoption intention.

 

4.Language Refinement: Some sentences could be streamlined to enhance clarity and readability. For example, "perceived interactivity, perceived intelligence, personalization, accuracy, automation, and instant experience are the core factors that enhance employees' willingness to adopt artificial intelligence for recruitment" might be rephrased as "perceived interactivity and intelligence are central to fostering AI adoption for recruitment." Simplified and concise expressions will facilitate better reader engagement. Incorporating these recommendations will contribute to enhancing the scholarly depth, readability, and overall academic value of the abstract, ultimately clarifying the research's theoretical and practical contributions.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the constructive feedback. Author has revised manuscript as per your suggestion. Following your suggestion author has rephrased sentence “are the core factors” to are central factors” throughout the manuscript.

Similarly, remaining part of the manuscript is carefully revised. Author has confirmed that in revised version sentence structure is clear and easy to understand. Similarly, author has also confirmed that there is coherence between paragraphs and all paragraphs are interlinked with preceding paragraphs.

The revised version is updated and free from any kind of grammatical errors.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a well-structured and clearly presented research paper in general. The research questions, therotical and pratical contributions, investigation methods, experiment and results are clearly articulated.

Some questions and suggestions:

1. please provide the questionnaire and the results, since they are the important source data for the research;
2. please list the key definitions of concepts, functions, equations and parameters used in the paper for calculating the numeric results, althouth some of them are well known;
3. please repolished the manuscript, the excessive description and some expressions interfere with reading, e.g., 1) sentence between line 221 and 223, 2) too lots of  the word "therefore" in the manuscript.

Author Response

 

Comments from Reviewer 2

1: The manuscript is a well-structured and clearly presented research paper in general. The research questions, therotical and pratical contributions, investigation methods, experiment and results are clearly articulated. Some questions and suggestions:1: please provide the questionnaire and the results, since they are the important source data for the research;

Author response

Thank you so much for the constructive feedback. Author has reviewed manuscript carefully and updated as per your suggestion. All sections have been updated carefully starting from introduction to conclusion.

Regarding questionnaire Table1 Measurement model comprise all questionnaire items with indicator reliability, construct reliability and convergent validity of the factors.

2: List the key definitions of concepts, functions, equations and parameters used in the paper for calculating the numeric results, althouth some of them are well known;

Author response

Author has revised manuscript carefully and updated definitions of the factors in introduction section. For instance

“The term interactivity comprises characteristics of interpersonal attraction, feeling of enjoyment and satisfaction while using artificial intelligence enabled human resource practices.”

Similarly, all other factors structured definition is updated.

3: Repolished the manuscript, the excessive description and some expressions interfere with reading, e.g., 1) sentence between line 221 and 223, 2) too lots of  the word "therefore" in the manuscript.

Author response

Thank you so much for raising concern about linkers.

In revised version author has tried his best to reduce linkers and ensured that sentence structure is easy and readable.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your article titled "Examining the Influence of AI-Supporting HR Practices Towards Recruitment Efficiency with the Moderating Effect of Anthropomorphism," is insightful and interesting to read and review. The article addresses a contemporary discourse on streamlining visual UI design. The abstract follows some aspects of the IMRaD abstract structure. The introduction is well-written, with a clear background and research questions presented and the findings are clear. The work is substantiated with recent references. The work is well-presented, highlighting a clear step-by-step methodology.

However, I am drawing attention to the authors on the following key areas requiring their attention for amendments to strengthen the article:

In lines 5 -23: the methodology used in your study is missing in this abstract. Please include it.

Section 2:  Since your study adopts a positivist-quantitative approach, you should critically identify frameworks or theories that underpin your study. Please consider incorporating frameworks that underpin your study in this section.  

In Section 4, from line 252: Your criteria for assessing your measurement model, discriminant validity, Cross loadings and the results are precisely presented.  However, for a proper structural equation modeling I expected to see your “Structural model fit indices”? These are missing, please consider adding them to make your results complete.

In Section 4.3. Hypotheses Analysis: In the first paragraph of this section, you need to explain clearly together with supporting references the criteria used to assess/evaluate your hypotheses. This is a critical missing component for your readers who may not be aware how hypotheses are evaluated.  

Contributions of your study to theory and practice are clearly outlined and well presented. I don’t have any issues with your discussion section.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

1. Your article titled "Examining the Influence of AI-Supporting HR Practices Towards Recruitment Efficiency with the Moderating Effect of Anthropomorphism," is insightful and interesting to read and review. The article addresses a contemporary discourse on streamlining visual UI design. The abstract follows some aspects of the IMRaD abstract structure. The introduction is well-written, with a clear background and research questions presented and the findings are clear. The work is substantiated with recent references. The work is well-presented, highlighting a clear step-by-step methodology. However, I am drawing attention to the authors on the following key areas requiring their attention for amendments to strengthen the article: In lines 5 -23: the methodology used in your study is missing in this abstract. Please include it.

Author Response

Thank you so much for positive feedback, current research has established research model to understand factors which impact employee behavior to adopt artificial intelligence driven recruitment. Similarly, this study has investigated moderating effect of anthropomorphism between the relationship of AI driven recruitment and recruitment efficiency. Research model is designed with the help of past literature. Regarding methodology chapter 3 discuses methodology in detail. Some supporting statements are as follows: 

“The positivist research paradigm is incorporated followed by quantitative research method (Rahi, 2018).”

“Therefore, literature review is conducted to establish causal relationship among exogenous and endogenous factors.”

“research model has comprised multiple hypotheses that are tested with empirical observations.”

Nevertheless, following your suggestion abstract is also updated. 

2. Section 2: Since your study adopts a positivist-quantitative approach, you should critically identify frameworks or theories that underpin your study. Please consider incorporating frameworks that underpin your study in this section. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer regarding underpinned theory this information is updated in section 5.1 Theoretical contributions. A supporting statement is as follows:

“The outcome factor namely intention to adopt is taken from theory of planned behavior. Therefore, examining employee behavioral intention in the context of artificial intelligence driven recruitment is largely contributed to information system literature.”

3. In Section 4, from line 252: Your criteria for assessing your measurement model, discriminant validity, Cross loadings and the results are precisely presented. However, for a proper structural equation modeling I expected to see your “Structural model fit indices”? These are missing, please consider adding them to make your results complete.

Author Response

 

Respected reviewer section 4.2 Structural equation modeling comprises detail information about all statistical methods. As this study has followed partial least square approach in SEM and therefore Structural model fit indices are not mandatory as the purpose is to develop new model instead of testing model fitness. Aside of that latest analysis like IPMA is also employed in this study.

Data analysis section is revised and updated as per your guidelines.

4. In Section 4.3. Hypotheses Analysis: In the first paragraph of this section, you need to explain clearly together with supporting references the criteria used to assess/evaluate your hypotheses. This is a critical missing component for your readers who may not be aware how hypotheses are evaluated.

Author Response

 

Thank you so much for raising this point. Section 4.3 is updated and hypothesis computation method is also updated. For instance

 

“As stated above hypotheses are estimated using structural model. Structural model assessment computes data with bootstrapping to mitigate data normality issue. Moreover, bootstrapping process has revealed t-statistics, path coefficient and significance of the path.”

 

5. Contributions of your study to theory and practice are clearly outlined and well presented. I don’t have any issues with your discussion section.

Author Response

Thank you so much although you have endorsed our work, author has revised implication section. Both sections are updated and comprises clear information that how current study contributes to theory and practice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is well presented, especially the methodology. There are minor corrections to address. Also minor grammar errors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are minor grammar corrections to address

Author Response

Comments from Reviewer 4

1: The study is well presented, especially the methodology. There are minor corrections to address. Also minor grammar errors.

Author Response

Author has reviewed methodology section. Following your suggestion changes have been addressed inside of the manuscript.

2: peer-review-44197710.v1.pdf Comments on the Quality of English Language There are minor grammar corrections to address

Author Response

Author has revised manuscript carefully and updated as per your suggestion. Changes are accepted and updated changes in PDF file as well as in office word file. Author has ensured that revised version is updated in all context and free from any kind of grammatical errors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx